Delhi High Court rejects PIL to de-register AAP, bar Arvind Kejriwal from contesting polls

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions to de-register Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and bar its leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak from contesting any elections for refusal to participate in court proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma..To buttress his case, the petitioner referred to the recent observations made by Justice Sharma against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders.He claimed that the same can be ground to de-register AAP.However, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said that the PIL was misconceived and there is no law in place under which such a course of action can be adopted."The submission is that in view of the judgement of this court dated 20 April [by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refusing to recuse] since certain observations were made towards members of the political party, the political party has disqualified itself to continue to be registered. Having heard the parties, we are of the view that the PIL is highly misconceived," the Court said.The Court took note of a Supreme Court judgment as per which a political party can be de-registered only in three situations."What we find is that the political party once registered can be deregistered in a situation when it is found that the registration was through fraud or if it amends it nomenclature or rule not in conformity with Section 29A or if the party intimates the ECI that it has ceased to have faith the constitution and principles of socialism, secularism or democracy or that it will not uphold the sovereignty of India," the Court observed.Further, the Court also observed that the Election Commission of India (ECI) acts as quasi-judicial authority and its decision is quasi-judicial and once a party is registered, no power of review is conferred. "The ECI does not enjoy power of review of the registration of the political party," the Bench made it clear. The Court said that in the present case, the submission by the petitioner is that the observations made by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma against AAP leaders can be a ground to de-register the party because its office bearers have acted against the Constitution and have no allegiance to the Constitution."Such a submission, in our opinion, is too far fetched. It is not a case where the AAP had obtained registration by fraud or forgery or that AAP has amended its nomenclature, rules or regulation which are not in conformity with Section 29A. It is also not a case that AAP intimated the ECI that it has ceased to have faith in Constitution or principles of socialism democracy or that it wil not uphold the integrity of india. The emphasis of the counsel for the petitioner is on that the observations made by Supreme Court in its judgement where the Supreme Court has observed that de-recognition is permissible on like a ground where no inquiry is called for by the ECI. We do not find any such like ground as being urged in the petition so as to attract the situation stated in the Supreme Court judgement," the order said.When a person's conduct undermines the dignity of the Court, the proper remedy is under the Contempt of Courts Act and the observations made by a judge in a judgment against AAP leaders cannot trigger de-registration under the RP Act, the Bench held."Such observations made in April 20 order in our opinion cannot be the basis of asking the ECI to initiate any process of de-recognition of R3 (AAP) under RP Act. We may reiterate that the entire submission is not only too far-fetched but misconceived and misplaced," the Court ruled.Hence, it dismissed the plea..The plea filed by one Satish Kumar Aggarwal said that Kejriwal and AAP leaders conducted a public campaign against Justice Sharma and refused to participate in proceedings before her. He claimed that their conduct amounted to an attempt to undermine the authority and dignity of the judiciary. Aggarwal argued that such actions, if normalised, could weaken public confidence in judicial institutions and create a precedent where litigants refuse to participate in proceedings based on dissatisfaction with judicial orders."The continued non-compliance or indifference by public authorities or concerned respondents in court proceedings undermines the effective administration of justice and is detrimental to the principles of constitutional governance. In a constitutional democracy, adherence to due process and active participation in judicial proceedings is essential to uphold the rule of law and public confidence in the justice delivery system," the plea stated. .He told the Court that the Supreme Court has laid down three situations wherein a political party can be de-registered.- Registration obtain by fraud. - Need of de-registration has arisen under Section 29A due to change in name, office bearers, address or any other material matter. - Any like ground where no inquiry is required on part of ECI. For example a political party is declared unlawful under UAPA or any other similar law.The High Court said that the only ground applicable in the present case would be the third one, that is if the party has been declared as unlawful under the UAPA or some similar law."In first two situations, this matter doesn't fall. On third ground is that a party can be deregistered if it is declared unlawful under UAPA or similar ground. Whether this political party [AAP] has been declared unlawful?" the Bench asked."No," the counsel for the petitioner replied.However, he said that the basis of his petition is the order passed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders initiating contempt of court proceedings against them."First, you have to establish that after an order passed by the court, the ECI can deregister a political party," the Court said,.."If he is not having faith in the Indian constitution, then he cannot contest according to me. Mr Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak," the counsel said. "How does it lead to the de-registration of a political party?" the Court asked. "My second prayer is there [to disqualify Kejriwal and others from Parliament and assembly]. As a member of political party I cannot scandalise the court," the counsel said. "If someone is found to scandalise the court, the remedy is under the Contempt of Court Act. Even if someone is convicted under the Contempt of Court Act, will he be stopped from contesting elections?" the Bench demanded."If leaders of political party are indulging in anti-constitutional activities, then they must be dealt with. A judgement came and they held a press conference," the counsel replied."So, that will disqualify him? Where is that provision?" the Court asked."It is expected that a personal holding a responsible position in a political party they must follow the constitution. They can't scandalise the Court proceedings. Contempt has been initiated," the counsel replied."They will bear the brunt of the contempt proceedings. How will that impact registration of the political party and his disqualification to contest elections? Where is the occasion for us to give a declaration like this at the moment?" the Bench asked."Some punitive action needs to be taken," the counsel replied. "Which law provides for punishment in such a situation. You read the Supreme Court judgement in Indian National Congress. We are asking you to show the law," the Court said."Law is not there," the counsel replied. "If the law is not there, approach the parliament," the Court said..[Read Live Coverage]